The Supreme Court last Friday asked some national law universities to give their suggestions on a permanent body to conduct the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) and to look into the misuse of the Non-Resident Indian (NRI) quota in NLU admissions.

Justices SA Bobde and Nageswara Rao raised these issues while hearing advocates on record Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Liz Mathew for Increasing Diversity by Increasing Access (IDIA) founding trustee Shamnad Basheer, who had moved the Supreme Court in August 2015 for a permanent body to conduct the CLAT.

AOR Mathew told us: “Issuing notice to the NLUs for a permanent CLAT body, the Supreme Court has widened this to ask the additional solicitor general whether NLUs are Institutes of National Importance. [The judge said on his own] we should also consider whether NLUs have to have any regional reservations.”

“With respect to NRI quotas being misused [the bench said that] the NRI quota should only be what was said in [the case of PA Inamdar]. Right now it is only a recommendation letter from any NRI person which will get you a seat so its not a genuine [quota] if NRIs are coming under that,” she added.

Mathew said that the court was inclined to issue notice for the permanent body only to CLAT 2015 convenor RMLNLU Lucknow but on the petitioners urging the court to issue notice to convenors for the next three years as well, the court then also included RGNUL Patiala, CNLU Patna and Nuals Kochi.

The terrible CLATs

Basheer filed an affidavit, in addition to his original 2015 petition, to highlight the newest problems with the organisation of the CLAT, after the CLAT 2017 that had been conducted by CNLU Patna.

The 2015 CLAT perhaps ranks as a historical low point, but Basheer pointed out how the question paper for the exam was yet again full of errors, how there had been a non functioning helpline number set up by the convenor, opacity in seat allotment, illegalities in allotment of special category seats, improper award of the CLAT tender and finally a flood of writs again filed across the country to add to the long standing trend of several writs challenging each edition of the CLAT.

BCI CLAT 2019: Uh, hell no?

The requirement to consult with Universities cannot be bypassed through a legal education committee, no matter how eminent the respective members of the committee are. Further, the legal education committee comprises only of some academics representing 3-4 Universities at best, who can hardly substitute for a pan India consultation with “Universities” as required by the statute. It bears noting that a significant number of members of the legal education committee are not academicians or representatives of any University.

In any case, the Legal Education Committee [within the BCI] established under the [Advocates Act 1961] has not been entrusted with the power to regulate entry and admission into law universities in India. In such a case, the composition of the committee is not germane to deciding the matter at hand, i.e. finding a constitutionally and legally compliant way to institutionalize CLAT in order to make for an efficient, competent and transparent process for regulating entry and admission into the various NLUs.

In this rejoinder he also highlighted in detail the BCI’s blatantly dismal track record, full of “incompetence and unprofessionalism” in conducting the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), and stated:

Given the past conduct of the Bar Exam, it would be sheer injustice to entrust it with the conduct of CLAT, a far more challenging exam that requires the highest degree of competence and professionalism in terms of setting rigorous analytical questions on logical reasoning, maths, legal aptitude and the like.

He noted that this track record suggested the BCI’s involvement would be “catastrophic” for the academic cycles at 18 NLUs.

Basheer argued in the rejoinder:

The Petitioner submits that the PIL was filed to redress a highly inequitable and unjust state of affairs, where students were subjected to a rotational CLAT conduct system by participating NLU’s, replete with arbitrariness and incompetence: a state of affairs that impacted their scores, admissions and very futures.

To now transfer the conduct of CLAT to an even more egregiously negligent, callous, unprofessional, opaque and corrupt body would be akin to forcing thousands of hapless students to jump from the frying pan into the fire.

By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.

Granting NLUs Institution of Eminence status will be hugely significant and change the face of NLUs. It will give NLUs the same privileges enjoyed by IITs and IIMs: generous funding, autonomy, brand value and greater priority in the government's policies. Some time ago, the NLSIU, NALSAR and NUJS student bodies had drafted a petition seeking this status. This petition must be revived. Since elections are coming up next year, the petition can also be submitted to the Congress for support.

I am honestly surprised that no one is asking this questions either in court, or in the CLAT committee and most of all the at NLU-Delhi itself.

How can the VC of one law school unilaterally decide to keep itself out of the purview of CLAT (shortcomings of CLAT notwithstanding). Although, the majority will argue (as they should) that the very fact that such a PIL has been filed means that CLAT is not a perfect exam, and they would like to maintain their own competent admission criteria. I wish to put forth:

1. Is not true that having complete autonomy over the conduct of the examination and the results, theoretically permit the University to selectively bias or choose a select students backed by vested interests and disguise them in the incoming batch of students, who have qualified on the basis of merit. Of course, this would presume the exertion of pressure and force on the administration of NLU-Delhi, and we all know that NLU-Delhi can resist that kind of favour and pressure.

2. Flowing from pt (1) above, is not true or not true that the number of students whose parents are HC/SC and Delhi trial court judges or senior advocates are much more in proportion to the rest of the batch than any other national law school. I am not implying any intention to these wards, but merely comparing absolute numbers numbers.

3. NLU-Delhi students should themselves come to the realisation (as did the students of a certain law school in Shamirpet after a change in administration and the introduction of CLAT) that such a model in fact attacks meritocracy and scholarly aptitude. The scholastic achievements of the students of the law school in Shamirpet, before and after the introduction of CLAT are well documented and can be corroborated by the faculty and students at that law school circa 2010-2013.

4. NLU-Delhi has crystallised its position as a premier institution of legal studies, and should rely on that to attract the top ranks to come to Delhi, in case it chooses to join CLAT. Heck, I will put my neck out there and argue that some students may even give Salt Lake a miss to come to Dwarka.

Anyways, Ill be glad to hear of what you guys think, I just felt very weird that even all these years, NLU-Delhi has a separate exam, which puts pressure (academically and monetarily) on young school students. The whole purpose of CLAT was to avoid this plague. Of course, CLAT itself needs reformation and re-organisation which is the purpose of this PIL, but the reason behind the special treatment meted out to NLU-Delhi should raise eye-brows.

Actually, the SC decision of including all NLUs within CLAT was only applicable to the NLUs that existed back then. Since then, every NLU that has come up has had a choice whether to be part of the CLAT MOU or not. NLUD isn't the only one t have opted out. So has HPNLU so far. We only get to hear about NLUD because of its obvious better quality and prominence. I believe time has come to file another PIL, which would now apply to all existing NLUs and so on. p.s. Just to make it clear, I'm against such opting out, given the inconvenience that it subjects scores of students to.

1. to provide students with a comparatively inexpensive access to a chance at entering one of these law schools, and

2. to reduce the chances of these law schools having 'back-door' entrants.

As such, though no law school outside the 7 initially impleaded in the matter were bound by the text of the decision, they were its spirit.

NLU-D for the longest time was the only one to remain on the outside. In doing so, it was in violation of the spirit of the decision and has set the wrong precedent for some of the others to follow.

The CLAT has many problems and need a re-vamp to improve both its substance and procedures. However, that shouldn't take away from the access question. Students should not have to pay exorbitant fees at multiple places to merely write an exam.

Point Two is grossly incorrect. I study at NLUD, and have a very good idea of how many kids of judges/SAs we have in our five present batches. This may have been true for the first two batches, but that's about it.

Conducting the AILET allows NLUD to generate significant revenue, and that's the prime motivation behind it. And with how much of a failure CLAT has been recently, everyone at NLUD is fairly happy that we conduct our own entrance (our current first year batch, for example, is fantastic).

PS - A lot of students already give Salt Lake a miss and come to Dwarka. The real question is how many would leave Shamirpet and Nagarbhavi.

They go to Dwarka to learn how to fudge data, probably. Maybe some of the people from Shamirpet can join you, I hear that are trained similarly. I say, good riddance. We are happy with those who stay at Salt Lake.

Whats the point of blaming NLUD students for AILET when they have no say in the matter?? Actually it says a lot that most dual qualified students (NLUD, NUJS) prefer to join NLUD and I can assure you that its not because of better campus placements (which will change in the coming years). NUJS admin and students should be worried that despite their self-proclaimed superiority people are choosing NLUDelhi.

If the students of an institution have no say in shaping institutional policy, clearly wrong though that is, then the students cannot avoid taking blame for it either, especially when they are so eager to lap up the credit for the positive policies of the same institution. Law schools and the teachers are there to instill concepts of justice too, not just the black letter. Clearly, that's not happening there. Students haven't ever even protested or tried to engage NLUD admin on this matter for onder, which speaks volumes. Also, as my earlier comment clearly showed, we at NUJS do not engage in proclamation of superiority at all, that's something within the NLUD troll/student domain too. We don't care whether they are better or worse than us, we are happy with the students who come to us and be a part of the institution. I see that the narrative has already been spun to prove how 'most' students prefer NLUD over NUJS. Without a shred of data to support, of course. Some propaganda machine they run up there! But then, data sanctity isn't something NLUD cares about much anyway, despite the much vaunted research superiority.

Daylight robberies earn you significant revenues too. Maybe you should start doing it. If every law school started thinking like that, you would have had to sit for at least 10 entrance exams. We would know how 'motivated' you would feel at the end of it. But clearly, that's the sort of mentality that the ones who opt for Dwarka tend to inherit from the institution. Do something wrong and then either advocate or justify it.

Not sure? How can that be? Aren't the 'nation's best law school faculty' teaching you even that much? Ah well, maybe it's true that even the best of ironsmiths can do diddly squat with flawed iron when it comes to shaping steel. It's not about acting holier than thou, by confessing that what your institution is doing is morally wrong, you are actually admitting that all other NLUs ARE on higher moral ground than yours in this instance at least.

If you read the order instituting CLAT, you'll realize that it only obligated the existing NLUs at that time to sign a MoU to have a common entrance. The order does not create prospective obligations on NLUs that came into existence after that. All newer NLUs have willfully joined the CLAT, and not because they had a legal obligation to.

You aren't reiterating, actually. Previously you weren't 'sure' and now you are about its legal 'correctness'. Nobody claimed NLUD has done anything illegal by staying out, simply been immoral, greedy and opportunistic. I believe that is sufficient to condemn any institution offering legal education. Incidentally, the illegality part has been served by the data falsification for NIRF ranking. And it's not about payment only. The fact that you think it is, is indicative of the privilege you are accustomed to. I have seen a student having to travel hundreds of km twice in a couple of weeks to try to appear for both the exams, with his parents having to sell their meagre assets to simply fund the journey. It's also an accessibility issue. With regard to your last sentence, it would only have been valid had any other law school been doing something that was inconveniencing outsiders and not simply insiders. There too, NUJS students have recently taken the initiative to actually go out and fight on ground zero about the right of slum dwellers, something that had nothing to do with their own interests or even connected with law school. LI and MSM had covered it, I'm sure you have read it too. The purpose of bringing that up is not to say NLUD students don't do such activities, it was simply to counter your last point. And had NLSIU, NALSAR/NUJS been actually conducting a separate exam or something similar that affects outsiders as well as insiders (it affected you all too, or did you only choose to appear for AILET and not CLAT?) and students there were not trying to engage the admin regarding that, then you could have perhaps said this. As it stands now, just admit that you all chose to remain self-serving on this matter and not ruffle any administrative feather, plain and simple. It wouldn't be legally wrong, you know. Just morally. And clearly the law school with best faculty and research background is not being able to help you reach that moral high ground anytime soon. Justice rings a bell? Or is black letter law the only thing taught there?

These issues will be brought up again and again every time you rush forward to proclaim your superiority over others. Those who live in glass house etc. etc.

Just saying that I already agree that it's morally incorrect - have admitted to that multiple times. Your "not sure" bit struck my legal argument, so wanted to clarify that.

I was reiterating my newfound favorite phrase - "kuch bhi".

Obviously we can characterise the problem whatever way we want (accessibility is also an economic issue, and that's how I wanted to characterise it), but yeah, it's morally incorrect of NLUD to have it's own entrance. Agree.

Well, I really wouldn't draw parallels between rights of slum dwellers and the rights of students to education in one articulate law school, but I do see your larger point.

Honestly, the best way forward would be for the SC to make a very competent CLAT body, because that is one thing stopping our VC from signing an MoU. In the last few chats I've had with him, Ranbir Singh really cares about legal education and access now, and I'm sure he will act when everything clears up.

@Kolo: Completely agree with the last part about SC, though I am somewhat skeptical about that being the only reason for NLUD not becoming part of CLAT. However, that's purely conjecture and not of much use either here. I completely agree that a permanent efficient CLAT body, with a common entrance for all NLUs in the country, standard syllabus and quality (focusing on aptitude and accessibility rather than rote memorisation) is something we should all champion. In fact, Indian law school students and faculty members should actually engage each other in some sort of common forum/platform for legal education in the country to make it to the next level. We spend too much time dissociated and divided from each other to benefit mutually from our strong points. I think the common forum connectivity was even part of the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Standing Committee formed a while back.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that NLUs will get INI status anytime soon, because:

a) Modi has given very low priority to legal sector reforms, from appointment of judges to foreign law firms to reforming the BCI to legal education. Ravi Shankar Prasad has been one of the most lethargic and ineffective law ministers in history. Even if the SC itself gives an order to the government asking it to declare NLUs as INIs, they will drag their feet.

b) Some NLUs have already instituted a domicile quota. State governments will be reluctant to roll back the quota, at least before the 2019 elections. All the the top 4 NLUs are all in non-BJP states: Karnataka, Telengana, West Bengal, Delhi. It is true that the Harvard Professor-cum-MP introducing the NLU Bill in Parliament is from an opposition party (TMC), but remember that it is a private members bill without party support.

c) The BCI will pose obstacles.

The only possibility is that NLU students across India unite and go on an indefinite strike, demanding INI status and a joint meeting with the CJI and Ravi Shankar Prasad in Delhi. But this will never happen as NLU students lack the unity of the IIT community. Furthermore, the tier 1 NLUs have good placements and will be happy staying their bubble.

I am from a family of IIT-IIM professors. I can tell you that INI status is a very big deal. More money and autonomy will lead to better pay and work conditions for faculty, thus encouraging good legal minds to consider academics as a career. It will also lead to better campus and hostel facilities. If there is a public petition I will be happy to sign it.

3) The correct model for the NLUs with be IIM rather than IIT or AIIMS or IISER, as these are scientific and technical institutes.

4) However, the big difference with IIMs is that they charge high fees and raise money through the private sector. So they do not need government support. They also have boards headed by industry people + alumni. This is how IIMs get good faculty. In the case of NLUs, only a small fraction of the fees of IIMs is charged. So if you want to be like an IIM be prepared to pay 5-6 lakhs a year as fees. Also, you must have the Zia Modys and Cyril Shroffs on the boards of law schools + alumni.

Sorry, but you can'y pay 1-2 lakhs a year and expect a world class law school, when IIMs charge 10 times as much and foreign law schools/business schools between 30 lakhs to a crore a year.

That is bullshit. Law schools are not starved of money. Nlsiu managed to charge peanuts but made money from distance education which all law schools could if they were not lazy and bereft of ideas. Also they can play a part in corporate training. Nujs raised a lot of money by training officers from L&T. Charging students more is neither desirable nor feasible given the salary they get. Stop spreading such misinformation. We need the law schools to be more efficient, not money guzzling inefficient mammoths.

Strategy - every knows that NLUD has an inordinate number of wards of sitting HC and SC judges, and those from the lower judiciary in Delhi.

This has been Ranbir Singh's methodology from his NALSAR days to build institutional connections with those in power. Note that I am not alleging that he does this for himself (though it pays to know the right people), but for the institution. Hence, it is important for him to have his own entrance exam. He went out of NALSAR before the first CLAT batch came in.

Shamnad, and those around him involved in this petition, are well aware of this fact. They have been around the law school circuit long enough. Therefore, as a matter of strategy they chose not discomfort the arrangement. This ensures that the judges assigned to the matter do not walk in with a personal/associational bias against the petition.

I disagree with those above who have stated he should have included NLUD. As a lawyer, it is upon you to chose the most effective strategy in litigation. That is all they have done.

I mean, sure, bash us for what we do wrong (we're bit too pompous sometimes, all the chest thumping doesn't help), but ye to alag hi bakchodi hai. You've fudged information to make a perceptibly believable justification for Shamnad's actions. Wow.

While I'm no fan of the aforesaid chest-thumping myself, I am afraid I must agree with Kolo here. Ascribing mala fide as a default stance on what is a perfectly believable strategy is not simply fair (NLUD is excluded because it is not part of CLAT and the petition is about CLAT! So is HPNLU excluded, I believe, why aren't anybody bothered about that?) I get it if someone is filing a petition about why these law schools are outside CLAT, but last I checked, this matter wasn't the same. And there is not a shred of evidence that the students of NLUD or their parents actually influence institutional policies in any way whatsoever. On a lighter note, without any offence meant, for every batch of NLUD to be full of progeny of judiciary, the latter has to be quite prolific in terms of their procreational activity! :P

What about CLAT 2018 which is conducted by a company with a paid up capital of 15 lakh only,What if same thing repeated in CLAT 2018 ,We all know no judge want to cancel exam only on the basis of technical glitch /error in questions .Same thing likely to repeated this year .It is evident from when CLAT released admit card along with practise questions .In the practise questions ,CLAT Committee remove options like SAVE ,MARK FOR REVIEW ETC instead of these options they put DE-TAG etc

We have written about it a few times, but unless there are new angles or developments, there's not much we can do to 'go after' them nor would it make much difference. I assume they won't voluntarily give up their separate entrance test because it's worked well for them, without a writ petition...

In my opinion the National Law Universities cannot be given the same National Importance status as IIT or IIM. The latter are very prestigious institutions attracting the best and brightest students of India. Their entrance exams are among the most competitive in the world. Their placements attract the top global corporations from abroad, with huge salaries. Furthermore, IIT and IIM professors are very established academics doing noteworthy research and consultancy for the government and many reputed corporations. None of the National Law Universities share this stature. At best the National Law School in Bangalore to some extent, but certainly not the others.

Those things happen with funds and autonomy, not the other way around. It's a myth that every IIT graduate gets placed in foreign companies earning 50 lakhs p.a. or that every IIT teacher is building the next Skynet. I'm not even comparing IIMs because they offer post graduate education only. But the same logic applies there too.

Many VCs secretly do not want INI status and will try to quietly delay and scuttle any such move. The reasons are that INI status means you will have to be more transparent and subject yourself to the central RTI mechanism, you cannot appoint faculty from your own state only, you cannot manipulate things by doing favours for state governments, and you have to open yourself up to greater public scrutiny.

I request Mr Kian and Legally India not to interfere in this matter. You are becoming too powerful without accountability. You are responsible for removing Vice Chancellors and instigating people to protest without any responsibility. NLUs cannot becoming like IIT and should be state universities contributing to social welfare of the state with state domicile quota.

As someone who has been away from law school for a while, I have a genuine query, which I hope Kian or someone else here can answer. I've heard that AILET's timeline vis-a-vis CLAT is such that the admission process at NLUD begins just before CLAT results are out, which may mean that those opting for NLUD first list may not even be sure of their CLAT rank at that time. How accurate is that? And does NLUD require some sort of financial commitment before the date of admission, like CLAT takes that 50000 for confirming a seat? If so, is that refundable should the student then opt not to take admission and go instead to the CLAT allotment, say, NLSIU, NALSAR, NUJS etc.? Given the tone of discussion here, I hasten to add, I have no beef against any law school and am convinced there are good kids hailing from all of those, even the non-NLUs. I am just trying to figure out the factual part of the law school choice metric involved. Same question for JGLS and Symbiosis and other prominent law schools outside CLAT.

Actually it is other way. Students who become eligible for top nlu and nlud,first hv to deposit 50000 to the top nlu. Students later on deposit nlud amount 181000 one time fee. Ratio of students is closely being shared with nalsar, who get selected at both nlu. As per my knowledge this is batch having 7 students who left nalsar(5)and nlsiu(2).The exam level of ailet was much better in compared to last year clat.

NLUDelhi is genuinely everything a law school should be except for long brand and top placements. Brand is quite comparable with NALSAR and NUJS today and placements is weaker but not by much. On every other count it is where a candidate will want to go.

Plus theres AILET. It's better conducted, better question paper, fewer bloopers and less leaks. AND it does NOT require deposit before CLAT process. THAT MEANS PEOPLE WHO PREFER NLUD TO CLAT NLUS DO SO DESPITE THE ISSUE OF GETTING THEIR CLAT DEPOSIT BACK. AND THATS WHY NLUD PREFERENCE IS WAYYYY MORE THAN NUJS (3:1) AND SOMEWHAT MORE THAN NALSAR (3:2)

I think NUJS (and lesser extent NALSAR) need a reality check. Sure they can go on screaming about their law schools but deep down they know that NLUD is the future.

Where are you getting these 3:1 or 3:2 figures exactly from? People these days like to play fast and loose with statistics so much! As per your claims, of all students having CLAT 1-270 rank, for every 3 students who choose NLUD, one chooses NUJS and two choose NALSAR. There is absolutely no study ever done that evidences such conclusion. For one, not all NLUD students have that kind of CLAT rank. In fact, not more than 50% do.

With regard to AILET v. CLAT, that's bound to happen. Had NLSIU, NALSAR or NUJS conducted their own entrance exams, they could have claimed that too (in fact, pre-CLAT, the standard of those papers was much higher than CLAT/AILET). However, when it happens at the cost of the greater good (read: hardship caused to thousands of students), it is simply not preferable.

I have worked with students from all of these law schools. Couldn't see any obvious difference in quality that merits your claim about NLUD's superiority. Inferiority neither, by the way. As for being the future, why don't we let time decide it? NLUD's test will begin once Ranvir Singh leaves. He can't be on that chair forever. And NUJS was in its golden age too under MP Singh after 10 years from its inception. Just like NLUD is now 10 years after its own (that too placement-wise it is still nowhere near other counterparts). In our VC-centric law school set-ups, one sub-standard guy can make or break an institution. NUJS student potential has survived a bad guy. Hope NLUD will, too. It is better that students from all of these places learn to work together, sharing their strength, instead of being in a measuring contest that people like you tend to instigate, God knows why! If anything, there is only one flaw that I have found apparent with people from NLUD in platforms like this; they cannot stop at saying good things about their own college, they have to compare it with others and say how bad and has-been the latter are. You did the same too. It almost seems like an institutionally-inherited inferiority complex! Why so, pal? You have got a great place, cherish it and enjoy it without having to do all this. Shouting you are the future does not do anything else other than take away from your present.

Has anyone seen this news report? It says PhDs are required even for Asst Prof??? This is pretty stupid, as some good, young profs (some of whom are NLU alumni) are teaching at NLSIU/NALSAR/NUJS/NLUD with just an LLM..

A report full of half-truths and outright lies. So, more or less the standard expected of HT. Nowhere has the 7th CPC said PhD is a must for APs, having gone through the whole report page-by-page, I can vouch for that. It is certainly preferred and even encouraged, but not part of eligibility criteria, nor will UGC ever be politically in a position to make it so.